New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

The defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent in the case is the Waltco Truck Equipment Company. The plaintiff is Mark Mandel. The Coca-Cola Company is a third-party defendant, while the Industrial Truck Body is a third-party defendant-respondent.

Court Memo

A New York Injury Lawyer said an appeal was filed by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries. On September 3rd, 1996, the Kings County Supreme court granted the motion by Waltco Truck Equipment Company, and Industrial Truck Body, the defendant and a third party defendant, to dismiss the initial complaint based on the non-compliance of the plaintiff with CPLR 306-b. The summons, complaint and affidavit of service included in the cross motion was denied.

Results

The order is confirmed according to the appeal, including costs. Allegedly, the plaintiff sustained injury when working for the third party defendant, the Coca-Cola Company. Pre-action discovery started in 1992 when Mandel purchased Index No. 3926/92. On March 29th of the following year, the Waltco Truck Equipment Company was served with a summons and complaint of that number, after which Waltco initiated third-party action against the third-party defendants in the case.

The complaint lodged under the original index was filed with the Supreme Court, Kings County, on August 4th of 1994 under Index No. 24909/94. No summons or complaint was reserved, but the proof of service from the original summons and complaint made against Waltco in1993 was filed.

The complaint was moved for dismissal by Industrial Truck Body, a third-party defendant, and Waltco. They based this move for dismissal on the claim that CPL 306-b had not been adhered to. The Supreme Court granted this motion. A cross motion by the plaintiff to file the summons and complaint nunc pro tunc was also denied by the Supreme Court, correctly.

CPLR 306-a requires that a plaintiff has to purchase an index number and file their complaint with the court's clerk in order to commence any action. Poley Paving Corp. V. United Cerebral Palsy Association of Sullivan County sets a precedent which shows that a personal injury action that is a new action against a second party rather than an adjunct of the pre-action discovery requires that CPLR 306-a must be complied with. This means that the plaintiff needs to again file a complaint and summons with the clerk while also purchasing a new index.

In the case of Mr. Mandel, these requirements were not met. The plaintiffs did not correctly follow the guidelines set out. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said the initial process served in March of 1993 was a nullity. Action against Waltco did not begin until index No. 3926/92 was filed.

The commencement of the action could not be waived despite the fact that jurisdictional defenses were not raised by Waltco. The Matter of Fry V. Village of Tarrytown is relevant, although some differences are apparent. The filing fee in the case at bar was not paid before the process was served. The summons and complaint were also not properly filed with the clerk. In the case of Matter of Fry, the papers filed were the problem, whereas the fee was properly paid which satisfied the principal interest of the court.

A Staten Island Personal Injury Lawyer said nunc pro tunc relief was requested based on the purchase of the August Index number, but as the action had not been initiated properly at the outset, there was in effect no action which nunc pro tunc would be applicable to.

In August of 1994, the action began properly when an index number was properly purchased and the summons and complaint were properly filed. The affidavit of service that was filed with the court referred to papers that were not properly filed, which results in the summons and complaint not being served to Waltco. The action was dismissed because proof of service wasn't filed until beyond 120 days of the initial filing of summons and complaint.

When a legal difficulty arises, whether from a car accident, construction accident or medical malpractice issue, Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help you understand what options you have available to you. Our team will work carefully with you to ensure that your interests are protected in your specific circumstances. Offices are located through the metropolitan New York area, and you may call us at any time to receive a free consultation on your case.

The plaintiff in the case is Tower Insurance Company of New York. The defendants in the case are Jose Reyes and Camille Khan.

Case History

A New York Injury Lawyer said the case is a declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff, Tower Insurance Company of New York, is seeking a judgment to declare that it does not have a duty to indemnify or defend the defendant in a personal injury action that is titled Reyes versus Khan.

The plaintiff is seeking an order to grant movant summary judgment in their favor in this declaratory judgment action.

The defendant, Jose Reyes, cross moves for a declaration that states that Tower Insurance Company does have a duty to defend him in the Khan Reyes Action.

Case Background

Reyes is an employee of Aerco Construction Company. While working on October 28, 2006, Reyes was injured in a construction accident while working at a site on Liberty Avenue that is owned by Khan. He commenced the action against Khan on August 28, 2007. He alleges causes of action as negligence and a violation of labor law 200, 240, and 241.

Tower Insurance Company issued a homeowners insurance policy to Khan for the property on February 2, 2006 and the policy expired on February 2, 2007. Tower Insurance Company disclaimed coverage for the accident stating the property did not qualify as an “insured location.”

According to the defendant, Tower Insurance Company, in order for the property to be covered by the policy, Kahn would have to reside on the property. The company claims that Khan never lived in the property.

Case Discussion

In a declaratory judgment action, a defendant must establish the rights of the parties on a particular subject matter. Evidence must be established to prove prima facie by the movant.

In this case the policy that was issued to Khan states that the property is owned, occupied and a two family home. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the application for insurance submitted to the defendant specifically asks whether the applicant owns any other residence and this is answered “no.” Kahn states that she does not recall signing any of the agreements for the insurance policy. She also does not deny that the application for the policy misrepresents her view of the property.

The policy clearly states that an insured location consists of the premises where the policy holder resides. Residence premises are defined as a two family dwelling where you live in at least one of the units.

Case Results

In summary, it is determined that the defendants opposition of the policy attempts to create a coverage for the property that did not exist. For this reason the court has ordered the following;

The motion for summary judgment by Tower Insurance Company declaring they are not obliged to provide a defense for or provide coverage for the defendant Camille Khan in the personal injury action of Reyes versus Khan is granted. It is also declared that Tower Insurance Company does not have to provide coverage for or defense to Camille Khan in the pending action in Kings County.

A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said the cross motion by Jose Reyes for a summary judgment is denied in this case. The Court also orders that Tower Insurance Company of New York shall be awarded all costs and disbursements as taxed by the Clerk of the Court upon an appropriate bill of costs being submitted.

Anyone that finds that they are in need of legal advice may contact the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. The lawyers of the firm can help you determine the type of legal action that you may consider pursuing. We have offices conveniently located throughout the city of New York. You may contact us for a free consultation at any time.

A woman who settled her harassment suit against a local town president will receive $75,000 in the settlement. According to online federal court records, the settlement was negotiated on Dec. 16, 2010.

According to a New York Injury Lawyer, the lawsuit alleged that the former president inappropriately touched and made sexual comments to her. The woman was an assistant for the town's administrator. Further, her lawsuit alleged that the Board and the president retaliated against her. She was fired from her job in December 2008. The lawsuit was filed July 6, 2010.

In the lawsuit, the woman stated that on several occasions the man called her after her work hours at home. He wanted to discuss personal matters going on in his life. He also made it aware that he expected her to travel with him during personal errands.

The president denied the allegations she made against him in her lawsuit on several occasions. He did not run for reelection. He would have been in his second term. The lawsuit also states that even though the woman complained about the harassment, the Village Board and her boss did not do anything to stop it. The lawsuit also alleged that she was fired for viewing confidential information, but when she pursued the matter, she could not get information on what she looked at. She said she was never informed of doing anything wrong until she was fired, her lawsuit stated.

The $75,000 settlement for the woman is reimbursement for back pay and compensatory damages she suffered when fired. The settlement will also cover legal fees for her attorney.

If you have been injured because of the negligence of another, including medical malpractice, premises liability, or have a workers' compensation claim, speak to Stephen Bilkis and Associates for advice and a free consultation. You deserve to be compensated for your injuries.

A federal Supreme Court in Utah modified charges against a Weber County judge to include retaliation against the woman filing a harassment suit, a source was told.

The woman filed the harassment suit February 2010 in the U.S. District Court for Utah in Salt Lake City. She named the county and the judge in the revised lawsuit. According to the document, the judge is accused of conducting unwanted sexual advances to his chief court administrator. The harassment occurred for about two years, a court reporter read from the lawsuit.

Her lawyer and the woman released a key piece of evidence in their case to the media after several failed attempts to hold the judge responsible. When the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission did not do anything about the harassment, the lawyer and his client released the 11-page love poem, which the judge wrote for the woman. The poem was single-spaced and mildly erotic. These cases are of great interest to courts in New York City and Nassau.

Not only does the lawsuit include physical evidence, but also it lists several advances where the judge harassed the woman. One advance noted in the lawsuit describes multiple times where the judge rubbed up against the woman. The woman also claims that the judge told the woman he dreamed of her naked from the waist up while doing dishes.

The updated lawsuit suggests that the retaliation against the woman was because she spoke up against the harassment, a collegue commented. Her position was eliminated April 2010 when the court was closed due to economic reasons. The suit states that the judge blamed the woman for costing all of the court’s officials their jobs. No court dates have been set in the case.

Continue reading "Harassment Lawsuit Adjusted to Include Additional Actions" »

A commanding officer in the Navy was removed from active duty and assigned to clerical duties recently because of pending charges for assault, sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an officer, say New York Injury Lawyers.
Both executive officer and command master chief of the ship have been demoted as well to administrative duty for allegedly witnessing the commanding officer’s inappropriate behavior and not taking action according to court reports. All three have lost partial pay and received letters of reprimand, explained a Navy spokesperson.
Reported inappropriate actions included drunk and disorderly conduct. Even simple acts like poking and tickling were reported, and allegedly took place on and off duty during a six-month period. Two crewmembers came forward with the information and wrong doings, according to reporters.
Charges were handled internally by officers due to the lack of severity of their actions. The officers felt the charges weren’t worthy of a trial or court case.
The Navy takes these types of accusations seriously, an officer said: "We do not tolerate this sort of conduct in the military."
He stated clearly that this case was in no way related to a recent case where another officer was sentenced to a few years in jail and discharged from the Navy after having forced sex in his room with a woman below him in ranking. In New York City and Staten Island, Naval offices are taking note of this situation.
The deputy commander in this case will serve as commander until the next commanding officer reports to the ship a NY Injury Lawyer said.
The other two officers left the ship before the investigation was completed and neither was available for comment regarding the incident and accusations.

Continue reading "Navy moves commanding officers to administrative duties because of sexual assault allegations" »